This Round-Up analytically summarises the key stories related to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reported at Taxscan.in during July 22 to 28, 2023.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench recently quashed the penalty imposed under Section 271F of Income Tax Act, 1961 against 82-year-old widow due to non-filing of Income Tax Return (ITR).
The tribunal observed the ruling of the CIT(A) that “Penalty under section 271F is not mandatory. AO may direct the defaulter to pay a penalty of Rs.5000/-. In this case the appellant is a senior citizen and widow aged 82. The case was done exparte under section 144 r. w.s. 147. The appellant has never filed return income as she is a housewife and had no taxable income. Having looked at her condition, the AO may have waived off the penalty under section 271F.”
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties the Two-member bench of Dr. B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant Member) and C. M. Garg (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Shikhar Garg,counsel appeared for the Assessee. Ravi Kant Choudhary, appeared for the revenue during the proceedings.
The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled that an assessment order lacking the Document Identification Number (DIN) within the body of the order violates the Circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and will be considered invalid.
The tribunal noted that in order prevent manual practice of issuance of notice, order, summons, letter or any other correspondence and to maintain proper audit trail of all communication the CBDT in exercise of its power under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, has mandated the income tax authority w.e.f. 01/10/2019 for generation, allotment and communication of computer generated DIN in relation to any assessment, appeals, orders, statutory or otherwise, investigation, verification of information, penalty, etc.
The two bench members consisting of S. S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) & G. D. Padmashali (Accountant Member) held that the assessment order is to be treated as never been issued, therefore ceases to have any effect in the eyes of law. In view of this categorical finding, delving deeper into merits of the case is unwarranted.Hence the appeal was allowed.
The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Mere ground of being benefitted from fraudulent transaction doesn’t prove being a beneficiary to such fraud.
The tribunal came to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment merely on the ground that the appellant had benefited from the Client Code Modification by which profits of certain amount were shifted out by the assessee resulting in deduction of assesse’s taxable income. Thus, there was no live link between the information received by the Assessing Officer from DIT and the belief found by the Assessing Officer that income had escaped assessment.
The bench consisting of Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member said that he was of the considered opinion that the re-assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of Income Tax Act is bad in law. Therefore, the assessment made by the Assessing Officer becomes nullity in law. Thus, the grounds of the appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed.
The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that relief Granted by deleting one Addition doesn’t mean to deny all other reliefs.
The bench consisting of Inturi Rama Rao and Viswanethra Ravi held that the approach adopted by the National Faceless Assessment Center (NFAC) was illegal and unreasonable and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Therefore, the order of the NFAC is set-aside for de novo adjudication of the issues in appeal afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
The Ahmedabad Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that parallel assessment should be made in respect of the same Income on different persons. Therefore, the bench deleted the addition made on the protective basis.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, the two-member bench of Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member) and T.R. Senthil Kumar, (Judicial Member) observed that assessee provide all documents and source of the funds before the assessing officer. Further, it was also noted that the assessment made in the case of Hansaben Manilal Patel wherein the sale of land has been duly taxed on substantive basis which was not challenged before any authority. Therefore, the bench dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of Delhi Bench ruled that no addition should be made on behalf of the assessee in respect of cash deposited in a joint bank account by the second account holder.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties the Two member bench of Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) and Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) observed that the cash deposited by the second holder of the joint account and the amount was the sale consideration earned from sale of agricultural land.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Hyderabad Bench held that the assessee failed to explain the credit card payments with supporting documentary evidences. Hence, the bench deleted the partial addition.
The tribunal observed that the assessee had failed to explain the credit card payments with supporting documentary evidence. Thus, the assessee has also failed to provide satisfactory explanations or any documentary evidence like bank statements, for holding such a significant amount in cash and not depositing it in a bank.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, a Single member bench of Laliet Kumar (Judicial Member) held that due to lack of supporting documentation deleted the partial addition.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the addition made by the lower authority due to failure to explain the large share premium received.
The tribunal during the proceedings observed that no one is appearing on behalf of the assessee also there is a delay of 565 days in filing the present appeal which is not backed up by any petition for condonation of delay. It was also observed that the assessee failed to substantiate the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions of shares. Thus, the assessee has failed to provide satisfactory explanations for proving the large share premium received.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, a Single member bench of Laliet Kumar (Judicial Member) upheld the addition made by the lower authority.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench ruled that issue of notice under Section 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 is mandatory requirement for framing reassessment order. Therefore which was not curable as per Section 292BB of Income Tax Act.
It was also found that provision of section 292BB of the Income Tax Act would apply with regard to failure of service of notice and not with regard to failure of issue of notice. Therefore, failure of AO in reassessment proceedings to issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act prior to finalizing the reassessment order cannot be condoned by referring to the provision of section 292BB of the Income Tax Act.
After reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, a single member bench of C.M. Garg, (Judicial Member) quashed the reassessment order.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad Bench Dismissed the rectification order passed under Section 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without setting off business loss against property Income and Income from other sources.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, a Single member bench of Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) observed that the assessee’s return of income has clearly set out that the total business loss was into minus at (-) Rs. 1,90,707/-.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the deletion of the penalty imposed for non-payment of the service tax for installation commissioning services on the ground of Limitation.
The Bench observed that there was no wilful suppression on the part of the assessee and the decision made by the adjudicating authority was as per the law and liable to be sustained. The two-member bench comprising S.S Garg (Judicial) and Anjani Kumar (Technical) held that the impugned order was legally correct and tenable and that the revenue’s appeal was not maintainable while dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench by allowing appeal filed by the assessee held that the Assessing officer failed to follow the mandatory procedure laid down under Section 144C of Income Tax Act, 1961 for passing draft assessment order.
After reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, the two member bench of Aby T Varkey (Judicial Member) and Amarjit Singh, (Accountant Member) observed that the assessing officer has failed to follow the mandatory procedure laid down under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act at the stage of passing draft assessment order Hence the final assessment order will become null and void and the mistake could not be curable under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the bench allowed the appeal.
The Chennai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the special auditor highly followed the procedures prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India while auditing ad that the Assessing Officer cannot simply reject or discard the special audit report merely for the reason that the findings in the special audit report are adverse/contrary to the appraisal report submitted by the investigation wing.
The bench V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and Manjunatha G. (Technical Member) observed that the special auditor has sought necessary confirmations from various persons with whom the appellant had transactions of purchases, sales, expenses etc., in accordance with the Standards on Auditing (SA)-505 prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI).
The Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the survival benefit of Rs. 2.25 lakhs on death of his father received by him was an exempt income under Section 10(10D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Two Member bench comprising Rama Kanta Panda (Vice President) and K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member) held that the assessee could raise the points of law even through a rectification application.
The Tribunal also held that the survival benefit of Rs. 2.25 lakhs was an exempted income under Section 10(10D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and referred the matter back to the AO for verification.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has partly upheld the appeal of Kartakeya Enterprises, a partnership firm, for the assessment year 2015-16. The ITAT found that the assessee had substantiated the claim of its expenses with documentary evidence. However, the ITAT sustained the disallowance of 50% towards petrol and maintenance expenses of the car.
The ITAT observed that the assessee had substantiated the claim of its expenses with corroborative documentary evidence and also noted that the ITO and the CIT(A) had not pointed out anything specific to justify the disallowances/additions made.
The Two-member bench comprising Saktijit Dey (Vice-President) Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) deleted the disallowances/additions made by the ITO and the CIT(A) for interest paid on loan, commission paid to Shri Rakesh Tiwari, brokerage paid to Shri Sumit Chitkara, and professional charges paid to Shri Rajiv Dutta and the ITAT sustained the disallowance of 50% towards petrol and maintenance expenses of car.
The Chennai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that issuance of cheque to associate concerns from OCC account cannot be construed as diversion of working capital loan Fund.
The bench of V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and Manjunatha G. (Technical Member) observed that the ground of appeal filed by the revenue is devoid of merits and thus, inclined to uphold the findings of the CIT(A). Also, directed the Assessing Officer to delete additions made towards disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2016-17 to 2019-20.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench held that bad debts declared as Non-Performing Assets (NPS) before 01.04.2006 are allowed as deduction under Section 36(l)(vii) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties the two-member bench of Kavitha Rajagopal (Judicial Member) and Padmavathy S. (Accountant Member) held that deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 36(1)(vii) Income Tax Act should be allowed since the same pertains to advances classified as NPA prior to 01.04.2006. Therefore, the bench dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of Mumbai Bench recently while deleting the addition made by the Assessing officer (AO) held that mismatch in contract receipts shown in profit and loss (P&L) account and Form 26AS reconciled by self-speaking documentary order.
It was observed by the tribunal that only because there was a mismatch between TDS certificate/26AS and the turnover/receipts shown by the assessee in its P&L account cannot be a sole basis for making addition in hands of assessee to bring the difference to tax. Moreover, the assessee has successfully established that the mismatch occurred due to inclusion of WCT/VAT/Service Tax in the bills and factum of deduction of TDS on the total bill amount.
After observing the facts and examining the documents, the two-member bench of Chandra Mohan Garg (Judicial Member) and Pradip Kumar Kedia, (Accountant Member) deleted the addition and observed that mismatch in the contract receipts as per books of accounts and as per 26AS was reconciled by self-proving documents.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has made a ruling stating that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has the authority to initiate enhancement proceedings on their own accord if deemed necessary.
The two-member bench of V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and Manjunatha G. (Technical Member) viewed that the CIT(A) did not travel outside his jurisdiction by issuing enhancement notice and such notice is not void, ab initio and thus, the subsequent conclusion of enhancement proceedings in favour of the assessee is valid on facts and in law. By upholding the decision of the CIT(A), the bench dismissed the grounds of the revenue.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the show cause notice (SCN) for imposing a penalty for non-payment of Customs Duty on the clearness of goods on the ground of Limitation.
The Bench observed that the department had failed to show that both the units have mutuality of interest as per the provisions of sub- clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) of Rule 8/Rule 9 of Valuation Rules, and the extended period could not have been invoked and show-cause notice should not have been issued for a longer period.
The two-member bench comprising S.S Garg (Judicial) and Anjani Kumar (Technical) quashed the penalty imposed on the assessee while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Raipur Bench while upheld the revision order held that the share of substantial profit earned from sale of agricultural land to National Rural Development Authority (NRDA) is eligible to tax.
It was observed by the tribunal that the AO had failed to verify the maintainability of the assessee’s claim that the transaction of sale of land at Village: Baroda to NRDA was exempt from tax and in absence of any supporting material had summarily accepted assessee’s claim.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties the two member bench of Ravish Sood,( Judicial Member) and Arun Khodpia,(Accountant Member) observed that the order passed by the A.O under section 143(3) Income Tax Act as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench quashed the reopening assessment in respect of accommodation entry without providing proper approval under Section 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, the single member bench of C.M. Garg, (Judicial Member) quashed the reassessment proceedings and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that Activities of the trust cannot be the deciding factor while granting registration.
The two bench members consisting of Ravidh Sood and Arun Khodpia held that the rejection of application for registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act by the CIT(E) was an erroneous application of law, thus, cannot sustain, accordingly quashed the same and directed to grant registration to the assessee as per law. Thus, the appeal was allowed.
The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that a loss springing up in subsequent year wouldn’t justify non accounting of income during the year the same had accrued.
The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that a loss springing up in subsequent year wouldn’t justify non accounting of income during the year the same had accrued.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the Central Processing Centre (CPC) was not within its jurisdiction to disallow a deduction claimed by a West Bengal cooperative society under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Two-Member Bench comprising Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) and Manish Borad (Accountant Member) held that the CPC was not within its jurisdiction to make any such prima facie adjustment disallowing the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, since such power was given to the CPC with effect from 01.04.2021 The Tribunal also held that the assessee had filed the return of income within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act and appeal filed by the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to allow the claim of deduction under Section 80P of the Act at Rs. 1,82,65,272/-.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench while deleting disallowance of interest held that investment made by the assessee company from its own interest free funds.
It was observed by the tribunal that assessee had sufficient surplus funds and had raised capital during the year by issuance of shares. Thus, merely because the assessee had also raised loans or paid interest against loans that does not justify the disallowance.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties the single member bench of G. S. Pannu,( president ) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. Commercial Income Tax held that if interest free own funds are available with the assessee or exceeds investment, investment would be presumed to be made out of assessee’s own fund.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench ruled that LIBOR is appropriate benchmarking rate for determining Arm’s Length Price (ALP) on outbound loan transactions. Therefore, the bench dismissed the appeal.
It was observed by the tribunal that ALP rate of interest in case of loans advanced to Associate Enterprises would be determined on the basis of rate of interest being charged in the country where the loan is received /consumed.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, a single member bench of Amarjit Singh, (Accountant Member) and Amit Shukla, (Judicial Member) upheld the loan to foreign AE benchmarked on the basis of LIBOR.
The Patna High Court while dismissing the appeal against Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, has held that four years is a reasonable time of limitation in the absence of limitation provided in statute for an order under section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
He established principle is that, if the Revenue has not challenged a declaration of law laid down by a High Court and accepted it in the case of one assessee, then it is not open to the Revenue to challenge its correctness in the case of other assessees, without just cause.
Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy answered the question of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee and reject the appeals filed by the Revenue.
In a significant case, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh set aside the extended period of limitation since the revenue fails to prove unjust enrichment on sanctioned erroneous refund of excise duty.
A division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Javed Iqbal Wani while dismissing the petition observed that the revenue has also failed to make out a case of unjust enrichment having failed to show how the respondent has benefited by such purported erroneous refund sanctioned in its favour by the Competent Authority.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the appeal of a company, Icenet Net Ltd., and held that the internet expenses and labour charges incurred by the company were allowable business expenses.
The Tribunal observed that the internet expenses were incurred in the course of business and that the labour charges were necessary for the maintenance of the corporate status of the company. The authority also found that the provisions of Section 115BBE of Income Tax Act were not applicable in this case.
A Single member bench, comprising of Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the evidence on record. As a result, the bench granted the appeal filed by the assessee, nullified the Assessing Officer’s order, and granted the relief sought by the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench ruled that no addition could be made in hands of assessee based on the book of another firm.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, the single member bench of G. S. Pannu ( president ) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) relied upon the decision of the Rama traders vs. First ITO observed that no addition could be made, on the basis of presumption raised by section 132(4A), in the hands of the assessee where in the books of another firm, certain figures were found showing the purchase made by the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench directed the payment of Rupees 5000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund due to non -compliance of income tax proceedings before lower authorities.
It was observed by the tribunal that the assessee is a non-compliant of the Income-tax proceedings before the AO as well as before the CIT(A). Therefore, the bench imposed a cost of Rs.5,000/- on the assessee and which should be deposited into the Prime Minister Relief Fund within 30 days of the receipt of this order.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties, the two-member bench of Om Prakash Kant, (Accountant Member) and Kavitha Rajagopal, (Judicial Member) restored the issue in dispute in the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the assessee on merit.
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed a cross objection filed by ICICI Bank for being filed late and held that taxpayers must file cross-objections within the time limit prescribed by law and that any cross-objections that are filed after the time limit will be dismissed.
The Two Member Bench, consisting of Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) and Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member), upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to disallow expenses from business income. The bench affirmed this decision and rejected the revenue’s appeal, stating that the reworking of deductions under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act was not supported. The Tribunal also agreed with the decision and dismissed the appeal of revenue, stating that interest under section 234D should be calculated up to the original assessment order date and dismissed the assessee’s cross-objection as time-barred, stating that the delay of 14 years and 30 days was not condoned.
The Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the District Mining Officer is under statutory obligation to collect tax at source (TCS) on the compounding fee received from illegal miners even in the absence of a valid lease or licence of mines.
The ITAT bench further held that, as per Section 206C, the assessee was under a statutory obligation to collect tax at source on any “Amount Payable” by the lease-holders, and it was not restricted only to royalty.
The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that NRI serving outside India is eligible for DTAA benifit under Article 15(1) of India Morocco DTAA.
The two bench member consisting of Sonjay Sarma (Judicial member) and DR. Manish Board (Accountant member) held that Assessing Officer shall give sufficient opportunity to the assessee to show that the said documents are towards the tax paid in Morocco on the income from salary received for performing his duties for the employee M/s. Dell International Private Limited. And In case the Assessing Officer is satisfied with these documents, necessary relief may be granted to the assessee by not taxing the alleged salary income. Thus the appeal was allowed.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no modification is necessitated on import documents for minor increase or decrease in weight than import invoice calculated based on theoretical weight is allowable.
The two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr C L Mahar, Member (Technical) held that “no value can be enhanced based on the weight variation since it was obvious that when a theoretical weight is taken by adopting a formula the same will never be matching exactly with the physical weight of the goods. Therefore, due to this minor increase or decrease in the weight valuation cannot be varied.” While allowing the appeal, the CESTAT set aside the impugned demand.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench while allowing the claim of deduction under Section 80JJAA of Income Tax Act, 1961 held that original return of income was filed by the assessee before the time prescribed under Section 139(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
It was observed by the tribunal that assessee has filed its original return of income for the A.Y.2020-2021 on 15.02.2021 and subsequently assessee has filed the revised return of income which the Centralized Processing Centre has considered as original return of income.It was observed by them that assessee has filed the return of income belatedly.
The tribunal after reviewing the facts and submissions of the both parties the single member bench of Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member) and Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) observed that the assessee has filed the original return of income before the time prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee is eligible to claim the deduction under Section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act.
The bench observed that it was clear that the after evaluation of documentary evidence including agreement with the Noida Authority, the CIT(A) noted that the interest claimed by the assessee neither related to any offence or arising out of any prohibition in law or any infraction of law but related to the delay in payment for the lease amount to the Noida Authority and thus parable as per the agreement
The two-member bench consisting of C.M. Garg (Judicial Member) and M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) inclined to agree with the conclusion of the CIT(A), where the authority directed the AO not to reduce the amount of interest from the work in progress and allow the same to be capitalized under the project expenses. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the assessing officer passed the order without complying with the mandatory requirement, and thus set aside the order of CIT(A) and allowed additional ground of appeal.
The two bench members consisting of Aby T Varkey (Judicial member) and Amarjit Singh (Accountant member) held that the assessing officer passed the order dated 29.03.2016 under Section 143(3) and 144C(1) without complying with the mandatory requirement of Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, therefore, following the aforesaid decision the said order is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, additional ground of appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Transfer pricing adjustment is to be restricted to international transaction.
In view of the judicial precedents, the two-member bench consisting of Waseem Ahmed (Accountant member) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial member) allowed the appeal.
The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal directed readjudication for disallowing the 2/3rd of Repair and Maintenance Expenditure as Capital Expenditure for Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission by Assessing Officer (AO).
The two-member bench consisting of Arun Khodpia (Judicial member) and Ravish Sood (Accountant member) restored the matter to the file of the A.O for fresh adjudication qua the admissibility of the assessee’s claim for deduction of repair and maintenance expenses. Thus, the Ground of appeal raised by the assessee company was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the addition on grounds of Assessing Officer (AO) failed to show conclusive proof that the assessee being a benamidar of registered society.
The two-member bench, with Ravish Sood (Judicial member) and Arun Khodpia (Accountant member) found no flaws in the perspective adopted by the CIT(Appeals). Consequently, they upheld the observations that led to the removal of the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, amounting to unexplained bank deposits of Rs. 1,24,30,799/- and the interest accrued on those deposits, which amounted to Rs. 1,78,210/-.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee grossly failed in discharging the initial burden, thus relevant provisions applied by the Assessing Officer (AO) are not applicable.
The tribunal observed that the assessee has simply filed documents but has not given any explanation to the adverse observations in respect of the bank statements. Even the CIT(A) ignored the specific findings of the AO that cash were deposited immediately before issuing the cheque Considering the facts of the case in totality the tribunal viewed that the assessee grossly failed in discharging the initial burden.
The two bench members consisting of N. K. Billaya (Accountant member) and Astha Chandra (Judicial member) set aside the findings of the CIT(A) restore and that of the AO. All the additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act are confirmed grounds.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
